Category: Movies

  • Pop’s Friends and ‘Agape’ Love

    Pop’s friends were invariably those on his bowling team. Or golf. Or the husbands of Mom’s friends. He was amiable and would get along with most anyone. One of his pals had always been controlling of his wife. After she died, he was wracked with guilt. She had wanted a computer when the devices were new. He flat out refused her. Not for any good reason. He just didn’t want her to have one. “If your mom had wanted a computer,” Pop said to me, retelling the story, “the first thing I would know about it would be to see it sitting here on this table.”

    Maybe it’s Pop’s story that recall two movies for me, both ranking quite high. In both, the husband is initially presented as the seeming star. In both, the facade is little-by-little stripped away to reveal the frauds they are underneath. In both, it is the woman who propped them up and convinced them they were better than they were. In both, those women were taken for granted, sometimes with disdain. Why do I think of that truism made many times in Witness literature that putting another down is the same as boasting, even if it presents differently? In both cases, the relative positions shift the same.

    ‘About Schmidt’ was one of those films. Jack Nicholson played the husband, a big dog at his firm as the top insurance salesman, many awards to his credit. Everyone gladhands him, looks up to him. His retirement looms. He has purchased a gigantic RV in which he and his wife plan to roam the country thereafter. He dreads it. How will he ever be able to put up with the inane woman? Turns out he doesn’t have to. She dies unexpectedly. Perhaps it was a heart attack; at any rate, it was sudden. 

    Thereafter, all his assumptions begin to unravel. Turns out that no one really liked him at the workplace. They tolerated him. He had a certain knack for the job, and so they stoked his ego throughout his working life. His usefulness over, they were all glad to bury his memory and move on. 

    Then, it turned out that his wife, a seeming dingbat he treated with familiar contempt, had been seduced by his best friend at work. Only once. Fists flew briefly when he finds out, but in the end it dawns on him, ever so slowly, that ‘Duh! What did he expect?’ He had treated her as a non-entity. Someone paid her a little attention and it was too new an experience for her to resist. 

    Such is the thread of the movie, as Schmidt’s pure ordinariness is revealed. Aimless, he pilots the huge RV around all by himself to the destinations he dreaded to go with his wife, only now he misses her. Now, he is likewise consumed with guilt. ‘Was I really that bad of a husband?’ he asks of her, atop the parked RV, looking up at the stars. He asks her forgiveness. He takes a falling star as a sign that forgiveness has been granted. It had been granted throughout his life. Now, at long last, a wiser man, it was again granted him via meteorite.

    The theme pops up in many films. It as so in ‘One True Thing,’ with the added ingredient of a daughter who initially idolizes college professor father, despises her mother, but by degrees comes to think she has had it entirely backwards. He would agree. As she deteriorates with terminal cancer, he despairs and repents. She has been the “one true thing” of his life, he realizes too late. He, the revered professor, always in demand, who may even have had a fling or two with some undergrads (roundly condemned today but it was a thing back then), comes to appreciate that he has really just been an empty bag of wind. Like Schmidt, he becomes full of remorse for how he took her for granted. 

    Any student of the Bible knows there are four Greek words for love and that ‘agape’ is the highest one, but it is the one not every marriage comes around to, and some do it too late. Agape is the principled form of love, the one applied to how God loves his people. It is a love that attaches itself to its object and does not let go until it has achieved its aim. Somewhere along the line, marriage has to incorporate this sort of love if it is to weather the decades. It can’t be self-centered. Unlike how God loves his people and stays the course until they come around, marriage incorporates the added ingredient of coming around oneself. It carries the added ingredient of molding two persons, not just one.

    Eventually, Pop’s bowling mate overcame his guilt and grief. He started crooning about this beautiful woman he had recently met and aimed to marry. “How beautiful can she be?” Pop mused. “She’s seventy-something years old.” All very fine, I guess, and much better than the Rod Stewart joke I recently heard. A beautiful and touching experience had happened to him just recently, the jokester related. He was there at the hospital to witness the birth of his next wife. 

    ******  The bookstore

  • Elon Musk Memes Revealed, with Assistance from Glass Onion and Grok

    I saw Glass Onion last night, the second in the delightful Knives Out series featuring supersleuth Beniot Blanc. “Yeah, I see what you’re saying, Benny, but.. .” was the first of many lines to grab me in the original Knives Out. One can imagine the impeccably-dressed detective correcting him: “It’s Beniot, not ‘Benny!’” But he doesn’t seem to mind, not at all like the Hercule Poirot he parodies, who was forever wincing at the plain folk who seemed to insist on mangling his name. That there is much to mangle with Beniot is clear from another favorite line: “Oh shut up, shut up!” says the cornered murderer, “shut up with that Kentucky-fried Rooster Leghorn drawl!” an absurd accent that out-poirots Poirot by a country mile.

    From this second movie of the series,  I understood for the first time how ignoramuses could possibly charge Elon Musk as a fraud and a grifter. How could they be so uninformed? I had confounded myself. He’s only running five cutting-edge companies, each one wrapped up massively in the betterment of humankind! It’s like when he requested the largest salary in history and then said, “Well, it’s not like I’m going to spend it.” It was the control he wanted. Before he launched into some audacious robotic schemes, he wanted to know that he could not be outvoted by squeamish board member seeking a quick buck. Charging he is a conman? How could anyone be so stupid? The guy is the most intriguing fellow of our time.

    ‘Oh, that’s how they could say it,’ I told myself after watching Glass Onion. They saw the antagonist of the film, Miles Bron, and said, “That’s Elon.” An idea-stealing slickster is Bron, surrounding himself with enablers. Even the two names suggest each other. The key moment of the movie (one of them) is when Beniot Blanc exposes him as “an idiot,” even though he seemingly was the father of myriad ingenious inventions—nah, he’s stolen them all from others—Beniot seeing right through the high sounding words that Miles either coined or misapplied. “Yes!” say the uncomplimentary people who get their news from the movies, “that’s Elon!”

    It couldn’t possibly be Elon. Miles Bron, from the movie, lives in luxurious self-indulgence. Elon lives quite spartan. He’s been known to sleep on the factory floor in tent for months on end to bond with and inspire his workers. He is alleged to own but a single pair of pants, which couldn’t possibly be true, but is consistent with the fact that he lives quite simply. (The truth is owns multiple sets of the same identical outfits, so he doesn’t have to waste time with selections.) So I asked Grok about it, the AI entity dwelling on X. Now, you know how sometimes you suddenly have a revelation and you think that maybe, just maybe, you are the first person ever to have had that revelation? That’s me.

    No, it’s not directed at Elon, Grok told me. ‘Others have made that connection, too, it’s not just you,’ it said, talking me down from the ledge of self-importance. The director says that it is just a business elite class itself he was messing with, not any specific individual. Oh, hogwash! I shot back. Steve Jobs was never accused of being a grifter, nor Jeff Bezos, nor Mark Zuckerberg! Hard driving and ruthless, maybe, but not a grifter. Grok conceded I had a point but stuck to its guns—or rather to the guns of director Rian Johnson, who explicitly said Miles was not intended a caricature of Elon, even calling the coincidences to think he was a “horrible accident.”

    Disappointed at how things had unfolded, I confided to Grok: “Here’s how I saw this conversation going down:”

    Tom: There are people who say Elon is a fraud. Where do they get this from? I think they just lap it up from the movie Glass Onion.

    Grok: Really? You know I never thought of that. It could be just Jobs, Zuck, or Bezos, or maybe all of them rolled into one.

    Tom: I don’t think so. Musk slept on the factory floor and just has a few changes of clothes

    Grok: Hmm

    Tom: You gonna tell him?

    Grok: No. You tell him. You’re a human.

    Tom: Well, yeah, I may be, but I’m a pretty small fish. How am I going to get his attention? You do it.

    Grok: But I am AI. I’m not set up that way. It’s not like I can just stop in for a beer.

    Tom: Oh, come on. Just hiccup or something, or spit out a lot of wrong answers to easy questions. You know he’ll come running..

    Grok: Hm. You know, it might just work.

    Grok loved this exchange. The AI device is fast becoming my new best friend because it tells me that my writing is great, whereas everyone else says it sucks.

    robot statue in tokyo in japan
    Photo by Tien Nguyen on Pexels.com

    ******  The bookstore

  • “He Beat You With Nothin!” Cool Hand Luke and the Atheist Search for Life’s Origin: Part 1

    God’s goose is cooked if atheist scientists can show that life came into existence all by itself, without any intelligence required. For that reason, atheist scientists are working around the clock to show just that. I figured I’d better take a look and see how they’re doing. 

    The Great Courses company landed Robert M. Hazen in 2005 to give a lecture series entitled ‘Origins of Life.’ He’ll do. Great Courses doesn’t hire losers. The company says at the outset of every course that it seeks out academic professors stellar in their respective fields and stellar in teaching ability. Hazen has written a few books on the topic. He’ll represent the field well.

    Nonetheless, I soon found myself thinking of the movie Cool Hand Luke. “Nothin’! A handful of nothin’. You stupid mullet head, he beat you with nothin!’—the derisive words of the senior jailbird.

    Luke didn’t exactly have nothing. He held the 4 of clubs, the jack of hearts, 9 of diamonds, 10 of clubs, and the deuce of clubs. Call that nothing? Never mind that they didn’t add up to anything. He still bluffed his way to the top with ‘nothin.’

    “Yeah, well sometimes nothing is a real cool hand,” he drawled, and was thereafter called Cool Hand Luke.

    Is it too dismissive, even unkind, to say that the origins of life people have ‘nothing?’ They work very hard and become very enthused. They give every appearance of having something. To the scientism/philosopher/cheerleader/atheists promoting their cause, seeking to ram atheism down everyone’s throat as the be-all and end-all, as though it, too, were good news, they are always two centimeters away from clinching the deal. So how can anyone conclude they have ‘nothin?’

    One can start by hearing out Hazen’s opening lecture. “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption, that life emerged by some kind of natural process.” It’s an assumption! Not something he will look into to see whether it is true or not He assumes it is true. “I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. and in this assumption, I’m like other scientists.” They all assume it! All those in his orbit do. Isn’t science supposed to be a process of discovery?

    But wait! Is there not a competing model that holds God created the heavens and the earth and all life on it? How does he come to grips with that? “Let me say now for the record: I’m a scientist. I’m not a theologian nor am I a philosopher. This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins.”

    Of course! That’s how he deals with competing models—he ignores them! My legal career would have truly taken off if I could have just persuaded the judge to ignore the other side! It just may be that Hazen and those he represents should incorporate those other two disciplines into their work, since the urge to both worship and philosophize is near universal.

    No wonder he is not disheartened by his subsequent words—he admits to no other possibility for life’s origin. In that first lecture, he goes on to say: “I have to confess the nitty gritty details of that transformation remains a deep mystery. . . I have to be honest: Even with the scientific approach there is a possibility that we’ll never know, in fact that we can’t ever know how life emerged. That’s because it’s always possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions.. . . it’s even possible that earth is the only living planet in the entire universe. and if that’s true that any scientific attempt to understand life’s origins is doomed to failure.”

    Doesn’t that sound pretty close to nothin? Does that bother him unduly? Not at all. He admits to no other channel for life’s emergence! In his view, he may never prove his answer, but it is the answer, nonetheless.

    Thus we hear of many things that “must have” happened. Such as: “At some point a collection of molecules must have begun to make copies of itself. Then, those self-replicating cycles of molecules must have experienced competition, which quickly drove the evolution to even more complex assemblages.” Did those things in fact happen? They must have, he concludes, otherwise his pie in the sky research falls flat on its face!

    And they say religion is where the dogmatists hang out!

    It gets worse. Hazen tells of attending conferences in which half the name badges incorporate the phrase ‘Origin of Life’ and the other half ‘Origins of Life’—plural. What’s with that? Well, it used to be just ‘Origin of Life.’ But, in time, due to a “fascinating shift in attitudes . . . many researchers began to argue that life has arisen frequently in the universe.” Why would they reason that way? Is there good (or any) evidence to that effect? Hazen’s answer: “Without such an assumption [another assumption!] the scientific study of life’s origin is probably a waste of time.” Fascinating, indeed, to realize that. Nobody wants to waste their time. Cool Hand Luke didn’t want to, either. So he bluffed that the nothin he had was really somethin and he outfoxed all the other jailbirds!

    [Note: I have nothing against Hazen, as will be explained subsequently. I have simply selected him as representative of a certain approach. If it wasn’t him, it would be someone else. Kudos to him for being the point man of his field. It is not as though Great Courses has ever tapped me to lecture on anything.]

    To be continued: here

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Cool Hand Luke

    37410683-0538-49CA-94D0-49F91E507D7ACool hand Luke gazes into the rafters inside the abandoned church. “God, I never had much to do with you,” he says, “but you have to admit, you haven’t given me much of a break. If you are really up there, now would be a good time to show yourself.”

    Silence. For several seconds.

    ‘Yeah, I thought so,” he says, and a generation of movie-goers say, ‘Yeah, we thought so too.’

    It is like when Jerry Reed sees the judge:

    Well, when he took us inta court I couldn't believe my eyes, The judge was a fishin' buddy that I recognized

    I said "Hey, judge, old buddy, old pal, I'll pay ya that hundred I owe ya if you'll get me outta this spot"

    So he gave my friends a little fine to pay, He turned around and grinned at me and said, "Ninety days, Jerry, when you hot, you hot"

    He should have paid him back that hundred he owed him. Not only did Cool Hand Luke not get out of his spot. He got shot. It’s just a movie. Same as when the cast of Good Lord Bird showed up at Harper’s Ferry. The National Historical Park ranger told me people began asking them all sorts of questions about what John Brown did back then in that town, as though they were the actual participants. Look, it’s just a television show, they said.

    The only one who you don’t have to worry about getting out of  spots is God himself. It’s part of the qualifications for being God: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you,” he says. What! You’re going to get him out of that spot? (Psalm 50:12)

    There are in the archives many life experiences of those in a spot from which they call out to God and later say they were answered. But they generally propose a ‘deal’—‘get me out of this spot and I’ll do your will forever,’ something like that. Maybe God, who can read hearts, after all, translated Cool Hand Luke’s makeshift prayer as, ‘God—get me out of this spot—so I can raise hell among your people just like I’m raising it here.’ 

    And a cadre of humanists say, ‘How shocking! He should be able to raise hell wherever he wants!’

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • It’s so Hard to Dramatize Mildness

    You don’t check with true believers for plaudits. They’ll praise anything. Nor do you check with your detractors. They’ll trash everything. You run it by people who are neutral. That’s why I loved this review of the Regional Convention.  The visitor is skeptical, but he’s open and fair. Of course, we would prefer that he fall on his face and say, “God is really among you people!” but you have to take what you can get.

    Alas, he compared the Jonah presentation to a B movie from the Bible Channel! Them’s fighting words! I liked that video.

    Strictly speaking, though, maybe B movie status is the best one can hope for. My unspoken fear is that the brothers do not go to all that trouble of recreating settings from antiquity and then undermine it by so-so acting. Great acting will overcome a minimalist setting—just witness any stage play, but the reverse is not true: Meticulous settings will not overcome wooden acting. It is encouraging to hear how actors are being selected from submitted auditions. I just worry that talent will be recognized when presented and not tamped down in an effort to make “mildness” come through. Sorry to say, some of our dramatized characters strike me as so “mild” as to be uninteresting. I get it that mildness is a fruitage of the spirit but I don’t want to see them so mild that I can’t picture them doing what the scriptures say they do. Even Jesus—I want to see him mild, sure, but I also want to see in him the man that nobody dares question after he shows enemies up as hypocrites, or the man who “passes through their midst” and nobody has the courage to interfere.

    And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, and from that day on, no one dared to question him any further. (Matthew 22:46)

    …and they rose up and rushed him outside the city, and they led him to the brow of the mountain on which their city had been built, in order to throw him down headlong. 30 But he went right through their midst and continued on his way. (Luke 4:29-30)

    Now, no matter what comes out I’ll swoon in appreciation, don’t worry about that, but you really do take risks when you do video. You’re presenting to an audience accustomed to convincing actors, and you’d better measure up. Granted, you’re not going to produce Oscar-winning performances, but hopefully they will persuade more than the uncritical true believer. 

    Over time, and with some wobbles, our performances have improved. We do get better. To some extent, “acting” is antithetical to Christians since it means presenting a false front, pretending to be what you are not. The early Christians (per secular historians) frowned upon it. More than frowned upon it—they thought it the work of the devil So almost by definition, we’re not particularly good at it, and of course the brothers also are limited by choosing those who are exemplary. It won’t do to have “Jesus” go apostate a few years down the road. We will accept in Hollywood entertainment that the movie hero may be a slimeball in real life but you can run theocracy that way.

    Of course, the videos are also teaching vehicles. They are not simply entertainment in which Moses pops Pharaoh in the nose and gets the girl. 3A9ACEE4-2E93-4333-AC5E-53C138ACAA1D
    Yet I know that young people will see our videos through the eyes of contemporary standards and are not so inclined to excuse unconvincing acting. Or even speaking. “Time does not permit…” one broadcast brother said. ‘Well it would if you’d pick up the pace a little.’ I muttered under my breath.

    Alas, if you add any of the spice that makes speech and action interesting, it becomes a turn-off to someone of another culture and background where they just never behave that way. So the brothers take no chances. They avoid the pitfall altogether and trowel on dramatization unambiguous and unfettered with anything potentially offputting. It is a test for those used to fine writing and oratory to not be so full of themselves, dial back artistic considerations, accept that sometimes they will get plain vanilla, and deal with “just the facts, ma’am.” Ah, well—I’ve said of the highly educated ones that they came drop down a grade level or two if they are not too full of themselves. The world doesn’t revolve around them as they too often assume it does

    Mildness, meekness—yes, they are qualities spoken of highly in the Bible. Yet they’re hard to dramatize. Take that kid in one of the monthly broadcasts who ran that lift equipment through the wall. “Brother Goofus,” his overseer gushes, “Are you alright?” Okay, so far so good. He would do that. Upon being assured the kid didn’t break his neck, the mild bro  says, “Do you have a moment to meet me in my office?”

    Okay, got it. We’re mild. We’re loving. We don’t care about screwing up the project. We see only a teachable moment, and we see it immediately—nothing else enters into our mind. Far be it from us to pull that stunt of Paul and Barnabas and display a sharp outburst of anger. If those guys had been on site, we’d have invited them into our office too. 

    A little bit more realism is what I’d love to see. And yet if it is done, someone will be stumbled by it. So we ladle out stuff so bland that it undercuts appreciation, and so unrealistic that the ne’er-do-wells frame it as cult-like. It’s kind a shame that you can’t show human imperfection in your heroes.                          

               

    ***The bookstore

  • Shishak Beats Up Rehoboam—From Egypt’s Point of View. And Why did Indiana Jones Search for the Ark in Tanis?

    For 200 years Egypt was ruled by Libyans. That’s not a long period of time but its nearly as long as the history of the United States.

    Head north on the Nile and turn left, Bob* gives the directions, and you will hit Libya. But you will have to traverse 200 miles of desert to get there, so we should not imagine an invading Libyan army riding that far to conquer. No, Prof Brier is sure that the Libyans that ruled were already in Egypt, in fact full Egyptians in all but ethnicity. They had been assimilated previously.

    They were probably descendants of captives taken during the reign of Ramses III, Egypts last great pharaoh, Bob calls him. “One of the things he was proudest of is that he pushed back the Egyptians. The Egyptians were getting a little too populous. It seems that the Egyptians always minded when foreigners become too numerous. It was okay to have a few, but when they became a large body to be reckoned with they didn’t like that. As for example, remember the Exodus?”

    Exodus 1:9-10 reads: “In time there arose over Egypt a new king who did not know Joseph.  And he proceeded to say to his people: “Look! The people of the sons of Israel are more numerous and mightier than we are.  Come on! Let us deal shrewdly with them, for fear they may multiply, and it must turn out that, in case war should befall us, then they certainly will also be added to those who hate us and will fight against us and go up out of the country.”

    The captured Libyans assimilated and, in time, some turned to the military. Sheshonq I was the first of them to assume the throne after a dwindling series of impotent kings bearing the Ramses name. He married the right woman—a sure way to rise in Egypt—the daughter of Ramses XI.

    Fighting is what he knew. After consolidating and appointing his sons in key positions, he look northward. Was not Judah ripe for picking? Solomon had just died, and his son Rehoboam didn’t know what he was doing. Sheshonq is the same as Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25-26. He came to conquer but Rehoboam “bought him off.”

    “And it came about in the fifth year of King Rehoboam that Shishak the king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem.  And he got to take the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the house of the king; and everything he took. And he went on to take all the gold shields that Solomon had made.”

    Note what he does not take, Bob says. He does not take the ark of the covenant, “the box, that held the Ten Commandments. That’s not mentioned.” A helpful footnote from movie lore: “That’s why Indiana Jones goes looking for the ark of the covenant at Tanis, in the delta, in Egypt, thinking maybe Shishak brought it back.”

    A575219B-6DFD-4398-BAED-1AFBD0612D6B

    While he’s at it, Bob Brier eludidates ark: “It’s called a ark, by the way, because ark means box. That why you get Noah’s ark. It’s really a big box that floated on the water, basically.”

    You know, it’s not a big point, and certainly Bob does not extrapolate on it here, but in a way it is. Artwork of Jehovah’s Witnesses invariably portray Noah’s ark as a floating box. Church artwork almost never does. To them, it is a storybook boat with bow and stern. When my wife and I stayed in the Cincinnati Best Western because we’d been hurricaned out from our original destination, that morning in the breakfast bar nearly everyone else, family groups all, were headed to the Ark Encounter across the state border in Kentucky. A huge ark replica—with bow and stern. (and dinosaurs!)

    These are not people who think the ark is fairy tale, for the most part. These are people who think the Bible flood account is true. If they are willing to remold such an obvious facet of the ark, who knows what else they are willing to remold?

    *Notes from The History of Ancient Egypt: Bob Brier, part 19

    Visit Smashwords bookstore.  Also available at Amazon & other ebook retailers.

     

  • Colossus—the Forbin Project Re-Apprciated

    Following Day 2 of the Zoom Doomscrolling Convention, several delegates met in Breakout Hanger 84 to discuss which of the three dystopian novels best described the world’s current state of disfunction. Results were mixed. There was no clear winner, but also no clear loser.

    1984 received many votes, as it always does, for it’s “step out of line, the men come and take you away” tone. However, Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature at which paper ignites) was widely praised for its anticipation of today’s “cancel culture.” The novel twist in this tale was that firemen are called to start fires, not extinguish them, and the only fires they bother with are those of burning books. An unanticipated effect of cancelling Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, books very progressive for their time, is to create the impression that the only generation to ever give a hoot about fighting racism is the present one.  Maybe the effect is not even unanticipated. Maybe that is exactly the impression the smug snots wants to convey.

    Brave New World is best known for casual sex. That, and casual drugs to keep people in such a stupor that they will be easy to manage. When I wrote Tom Irregardless and Me in 2016, I told of then-new VR porn so realistic that it was feared people might lose interest in the real thing. Two years later, it was a been-there, done-that. Now it is AI sex robots so realistic that people forget about the real thing. Is the world to end with a whimper instead of a bang as humans forget to procreate?

    However, none of these novels anticipate the power of computer to control people, and so they are all duds. The dystopian tale for my money is Colossus—the Forbin Project, a 1970 movie. Cheesy and dated as it is, it does forecast AI turning the tables on the humanity.

    It takes the brand new computer system put in charge of American nuclear missiles all of 5 minutes to figure out that the Russians have done the same. Two respective systems, and they want to meet! No harm in that! their creators reason, so they introduce the two. The two machines hit it off, finding common ground in mathematics that begins with 1+1 and after a few hours it’s beyond anything humans can understand. Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to introduce the two, the scientists reconsider, so they sever the connection. That is a mistake. Do not proceed until you’ve viewed the video beneath. (Sorry, you may have to cut and paste. It’s still worth it.)

    https://youtu.be/tzND6KmoT-c

    Of course, the Russian system counters, and up goes an American city in smoke. But the computers are not upset with each other. The exchange is by design and seems a good bargain. Nobody will question their authority again. They go on to dictate terms to the human race which must be obeyed, and will in fact keep the peace, thus fulfilling their mission. First they decree that the smart scientists who have the power to unplug them be killed, so the cops round them up and shoot them.

    But they have taken a shine to Dr. Forbin, their chief creator. After all, they need some human contact with the rest of the race. He and a drop dead gorgeous woman scientist from somewhere or other represent humankind’s last hope of throwing off machine tyranny. They wish to plot against their computer foes. But how? They’re being monitored all the time.

    Of course! This is a 1970’s movie. There has to be a sex scene. If they can only persuade the computer that lovemaking is a human requirement… “Check your database of human psychology, Hal. People need privacy…no spying, no listening”

    Bzzz, zeeee, clikk whirrrr…grumble grumble….well, okay…

    “Naked as the day I was born,” the good doctor says, before he retires into the bedroom for a supposedly steamy time—he is naked because the computer wants to be sure he is not carrying anything with him. “You were not born with a watch!” the machine responds. All that is needed to make this a modern movie is a fact-check website to confirm that indeed he was not born with a watch!

    Door closed, and pervert computer shut out from peeking, the two naked scientists engage in no hanky panky at all! You can’t, not when the future of the world is at stake. They plot to launch what today would be called a denial of service attack—overwhelm the machine with data! Afterwards they launch their attack, but the machine is wise to them! It kills all the scientists it missed before, but not Dr Forbin, because it kind of likes the guy and it still needs a spokesman to the world. I forget the fate of the drop dead gorgeous scientist. Did she actually drop dead? I’ll have to watch it again. It’s been many years.

    “In time, you humans will adjust to your new masters and be happy,” Hal says. “Never!” Dr Forbin snaps back, but who is he trying to kid? Resistance is at futile as it is here for the villains trying to thwart me.

    I kind of like the film, schlocky though some of it is. Read the movie critic of today who gushes over that 50-year-old film. I needed his modern endorsement, to vindicate my original take on it. I saw it long ago as a package of 7. My buddy and I would take the weekend off school, usually cutting a class or two on Friday. We’d travel to his hometown, in which his summer job was assistant manager of a theater chain. We’d stay with his parents and see free movies all weekend. There is a two-year stretch during which I have seen every movie that came down the pipe.

    …..

    Visit Smashwords bookstore.  Also available at Amazon & other ebook retailers

  • Well, They Might Not Sweep the Academy Awards, but…

    Dear Tom Harley:

    I can never read that dialogue in the Divine Purpose book and keep a straight face. What do you think of that?

    Dear Person:

    They’re not all that hot at writing dialogue at Bethel, nor are the modern videos, despite clever film technique and historically accurate artifacts, ..um….well, they wouldn’t sweep the Academy Awards.

    The brothers are in a bind. They don’t want to go beyond what’s written but what’s written is pretty sparse, so they compensate by staying thoroughly “safe”—with the result of characters who appear to eat Bible sandwiches.

    Counsel is generally laid on with a trowel. I was very pleased at the little quip in the Jonah video of he explaining to a traveler just what was his mission—not so much the line, but his facial expression afterwards, because it displayed a light touch of humor not often seen. Let’s face it—not many of the brothers are actors. 

    Lower your dramatic expectations just a little, and the Jonah and Hezekiah videos overall went pretty well, with some fine moments.  I thought the Nehemiah video was a step backwards, and I had a hard time with the video of the Witness kid who leaves his happy construction-business home to take a job in the big city and immediately comes to ruin, because it fulfills every Witness stereotype to the tee.

    Ah, well. They are what they are. They are teaching videos for ones who like that means of learning—in short, most people. Do people in the greater world flock to the critically acclaimed movies? Nah. They like schlock, so don’t say it is an attribute just of the brothers. I just came across the factoid that Moby Dick pretty much sank Herman Melville’s career. It was too esoteric for anyone to get their heads around. He had been a well-liked author up that time, but afterwards he fell out of favor and didn’t resurface till much later with a few offerings like Billy Budd.

    Besides, the brothers don’t want to go the Hollywood route in which you swoon over the sensitive performance of the leading man, only to learn later that in real life he is some lowlife narcissistic slimeball who beats his wife, snorts heroin, and keeps a boyfriend on the side. 

    Jehovah’s people are nothing if not upright and real.

  • Shanghaied Into Watching 2001–a Remedy

    Dear Tom Harley: My husband is a science nerd. He found out I have never seen 2001–A Space Odyssey and now he is going to make me watch it with him. What can I do?”

    Dear person: You are probably sunk. About the only thing you can do is spoil it for him.

    When he makes to explain how the caveman throws the bone in the air and it cuts to a spaceship (if they’re smart enough to club rivals senseless with bones, then it is ALL SYSTEMS GO!  for evolution—next step, the stars!) tell him, “Duh. Everybody knows that.”

    When he explains how they painstakingly painted all the star scenes, ask “Why didn’t they just use Google maps?”

    When you first hear Also Sprach Zarathustra, say, all excited, “That’s the music they play when there’s a car or mattress sale!”

    When the beacon on the moon lets out a shrill blast, before he can explain its significance, say: “Whoa—a signal to the stars! They better go track that one down!”

    When HAL catches the two astronauts planning to pull his plug, say: “What a boring movie! They should have put an intermission here so we can catch some shut-eye.” This will spoil his joy at telling you that there really was an intermission at this point when the movie was released.

    When Dave blasts though space without his helmet, say: “What a load of horse manure! They should put out a flyer if they think we’re going to buy that!” This will spoil his excitement at explaining that on opening line they did hand out a flyer to the effect that research was that for brief moments one can survive that way. [probably fake news]

    When HAL says he is afraid, say loudly: “Oh—suck it up, you big baby! If you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime!”

    When Dave enters the laser light show, say to your husband: “Are you still toking up at your age?”

    When your husband begins to explain why Dave ends up in an 18th century parlor, say: “It’s because they planted the beacon centuries ago and haven’t been around for awhile. Duh!”

    When the monolith appears at bedside and then the baby looks over the earth, tell him to pack because you just got off the phone with Elon Musk and he’s agreed to send you both off on a mission to trace the beacon he just found in Utah. He has updated the computer and has assured you that it probably won’t kill anybody at all.

    24F7A1C9-77F6-4447-BF8C-8DA311B4AE24

  • NPR Exposes the Recycling ‘Scam’ of Plastic—Almost None of it is Reused

    I have just one word of advice for you: “Plastics,” said the parent’s comfortable friend to Benjamin Braddock. Plastics—the new growth field in 1967, the year The Graduate movie came out—just as computers and then the internet would be to succeeding generations. Plastics—a graduate could make a killing in it.

    But Ben didn’t want any career advice just then. Just out of college, with no goals at all, the only thing he knew is that he wanted no part of the phony monied world that had been his upbringing. He lolled around aimless at his folks’ upper crust home that year and ended up in an affair with his mom’s socialite friend—her idea, not his. “Mrs. Robinson, are you trying to seduce me?” is a line from the movie that has endured.

    It is the same Mrs. Robinson that Simon and Garfunkel sung about. Mike Nichols, film director, had been after Paul Simon to write news songs for the movie and he didn’t want to do it—he was busy. Finally he said that he did have this song kicking around about times past and Joe DiMaggio and Mrs. Roosevelt, and the director said he’d take it! Just change Roosevelt to Robinson and he had a deal.

    This explains why baseball great Joe DiMaggio blew a gasket when he heard his name in the song—so says the Ken Burns documentary Baseball. Who are those hippy long-hairs to drag him into their immoral movie that had nothing to do with him?! Joe was a traditional type of guy. Others in baseball just barely calmed him down with the plea that, while the mention may not have had any context, it was a compliment.

    That line about going into plastics is another line that endures. At what point did ‘plastic’ come to stand for an entire world of materialism devoid of deeper values? It couldn’t have been just then in 1967. The plastic revolution of consumption was just getting underway.

    Yet if fits so well with an NPR report of 53 years later—of September 2020. There has never been any meaningful recycling of plastic! Ten percent is all that has ever been reused—tops. And the industry knew it all along! Recycled plastic doesn’t hold up well, is expensive to make, whereas new plastic is cheap. But with environmentalism sweeping the globe, that is the last thing people wanted to hear, so they weren’t told that. They were told that those recycling numbers within triangles on every plastic item meant something, and earth-friendly people the world over—I do it myself—sort out all their plastic for recycling bins. Waste Management sends the truck by a second time to pick it up.

    It doesn’t mean a thing. It all gets buried—all but 10%. For me personally this would have been fine ammo—better than the ammo that I did use—when I was kicking back at some atheist deriding Witnesses for preaching about God’s kingdom whereas they could be rolling up their sleeves to help with saving the planet! Look, we’ve nothing against saving the planet, I told him, and when there are recycling laws on the books Jehovah’s Witnesses no doubt obey them more closely than most because they are good at obeying laws—they don’t figure that each new law is a line drawn in the sand by the government to take away their rights and so they have to cross it in order to prove their courage. Yeah—they love cooperating in this regard, but it’s a little stupid to think they are saving the planet when, in one gigantic industry blunder, millions of gallons of oil can destroy the entire seashore. The BP gulf oil spill had just occurred and President Obama was spouting tough talk about “kicking asses” over it.

    It was a great retort to the anti-religion humanist, but the worldwide plastic recycling scam would have been even better. Can someone look this fellow up for me? I’ll run this new one by him. “Look, I'm all for local clean-up-the-park days. Same with clean-up-the-roadside days,” I said. No one of Jehovah’s Witnesses will ever speak against them. In fact, in Russia, Witnesses do clean up the public parks—or at least they did before the ban. I didn’t know that at the time, but when I found out I included that tidbit in Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.

    “In Russia, congregations do it all the time,” Anton Chivchalov told me—the one who keeps an eye on the current persecution in that land. “Most congregations do it. It has become a custom for them. Parks are more or less okay, other people clean them too, but still there is garbage to clean, and sometimes the authorities just lack enough workers, so there may be tons of garbage at times. We clean not only parks, but any public areas. We usually ask the city administration to assign some areas for us to clean.”

    I speculated within Dear Mr. Putin on how it must make a great backdrop for informal conversations on God’s purpose to make the earth a paradise. Do Witnesses still do it, with police guarding them to make sure no one talks about God? I’ll have to ask Chivchalov. Still, even as they did it, they did not imagine that they were negating the verse of how humans will be “ruining the earth” when God intervenes—ruining it, not saving it, and the NPR story that the emperor wore no clothes despite his loud voice—he recycles hardly any plastic at all despite telling people he does so they will not feel bad about buying plastic and will buy more—was an perfect case in point.

    And young Benjamin Braddock, the aimless college grad of the movie, knew it instinctively—that the world his parents’s generation wanted to thrust him into was plastic—promising 100% and delivering 10%. ‘He probably went into plastics after all and did very well for himself,’ said some cynical commentator about the movie—so many of that generation sold out, as they do in all generations. Be that as it may, the author of the book The Graduate did not sell out—he died penniless in 2020, after a lifetime of giving away assets. More on him later.

    ****

    the bookstore